6 ms·

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The law says the officers need to be engaged in "police activity," defined broadly enough to include almost anythin

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The law says the officers need to be engaged in "police activity," defined broadly enough to include almost anything, but it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." Arguably maintaining a perimeter would be part of "questioning a suspicious person" or "enforcing the law" and thus would count as "police activity" meaning you need to film 8 feet away. Here's the one page law https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf edit even easier, if this law was enacted, one officer could say to another "make sure those people filming are eight feet away." Then, to enforce the law they would need to approach the person filming to measure the distance but as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away. Simple magic circle gotcha.

zimpenfish 4y ago
> it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." It specifically quotes "law enforcement activity" as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON", "CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW", or "HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR". All of those are "actively involved". > as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away I'm reasonably sure any court would consider the locus of action to be the first officer, not the second, and claims to the contrary would be dismissed. Probably why no-one is willing to defend the law from this injunction...
- Cipater 4y ago
  >ENFORCING THE LAW You really don't see the problem here? That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does. It is broad, yes, but claiming that an officer making sure people were 8ft away is part of the same law enforcement procedure as the cops making an arrest (and thus people would have to be an extra 8ft away) almost certainly isn't going to stand up in court. Although we'll sadly never find out for sure because no-one is willing to defend it against the injunction. Maybe they'll have better luck on their 3rd go around.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >All of those are "actively involved". You can argue they mean they need to be actively involved, but you quoted the term as if the law was explicit about it when it isn't. I don't see how keeping people away wouldn't be part of "questioning a suspicious person" and the "enforcing the law" is completely vague. Admittedly, I also misquoted changing "Law Enforcement Activity" to "Police Activity," so I can see how mistakes happen. Also, my simple gotcha might not work as the person filming would then also be the subject of police contact, meaning they could film.

zimpenfish 4y ago

> it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." It specifically quotes "law enforcement activity" as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON", "CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW", or "HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR". All of those are "actively involved". > as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away I'm reasonably sure any court would consider the locus of action to be the first officer, not the second, and claims to the contrary would be dismissed. Probably why no-one is willing to defend the law from this injunction...

Cipater 4y ago
>ENFORCING THE LAW You really don't see the problem here? That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does. It is broad, yes, but claiming that an officer making sure people were 8ft away is part of the same law enforcement procedure as the cops making an arrest (and thus people would have to be an extra 8ft away) almost certainly isn't going to stand up in court. Although we'll sadly never find out for sure because no-one is willing to defend it against the injunction. Maybe they'll have better luck on their 3rd go around.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
>All of those are "actively involved". You can argue they mean they need to be actively involved, but you quoted the term as if the law was explicit about it when it isn't. I don't see how keeping people away wouldn't be part of "questioning a suspicious person" and the "enforcing the law" is completely vague. Admittedly, I also misquoted changing "Law Enforcement Activity" to "Police Activity," so I can see how mistakes happen. Also, my simple gotcha might not work as the person filming would then also be the subject of police contact, meaning they could film.